emily sparkle wrote:i wonder if moderators wouldn't prefer to remain anonymous (ie, have different login for their moderator self) that would allow them to also participate in their own conversational way without the baggage of the title of moderator.

I actually thought about that and here is why.

Person discusses various issues of a political nature and generally takes a certain position in most discussions. Person becomes a moderator. person is placed in a position where a posting by someone who generally holds an opposing view must be removed for perfectly legitimate reasons. Person who's post is removed claims it was removed because the other person "doesn't like me". This devolves into "did too, did not" stuff.

The potential of that situation erupting might result in a moderator either moderating in a sock ... or doing most of their non-moderating posting in a sock.

Tancorix wrote:When I looked at the list of who's on the board Spectabillis's name came up in Moderator green. I take it moderators have already been picked and i missed any announcements on it?

In any event congratulations Spectabillis.

Thanks, but dont think congrats are in order or anything, its not a position of prestige or any privelage. It was something that I was discussing with Actiongrl for awhile and wanted to get things going... things are still being worked out.

I'm a bit surprised no one has suggested a Slashdot style moderation system. The gist of it is that everyone is a moderator, and while moderation powers are extremely limited for any one individual, in aggregate they're quite effective. The way Slashdot does it is to semirandomly hand out a number of moderation points to active participants from time to time, which they can use to score individual posts up or down according to a predefined list of criteria (e.g. +Informative or -Flamebait.) Each reader can set his own viewing threshold, such that he only sees posts that have been scored above a certain level. He can also classify other posters as Friends or Foes, giving their posts an automatic scoring bonus or penalty to that reader alone. (There are more details, but since I'm not advocating an exact copy of their system I'll leave it as an exercise to interested parties to find their moderation FAQ.)

The idea is that the good sense of the community at large outweighs the negative effects of any individual bad actor, without actually stifling that actor, and without resorting to grants of extraordinary powers to a select aristocracy. No one is censored, since anyone can set their prefs to view all posts. Everyone's a participant. Sounds familiar, huh?

(One prerequisite to making this work would be comment nesting, though. Reading visible replies to hidden comments gets confusing real quick.)

I'm wondering also if the discussion was tabled re. thread owners moderating their own area. I may have rushed passed any discussion that took place but if not I think it might be an interesting discussion to chew on.

Yeah ... Slashcode might make an interesting board. It is, though, I believe designed to have a limited number of people that are permitted to start a new thread (post a new article that collects comments)

Badger wrote:I'm wondering also if the discussion was tabled re. thread owners moderating their own area. I may have rushed passed any discussion that took place but if not I think it might be an interesting discussion to chew on.

I think that might have some problems when it comes to applying it to a purpose-directed board, i.e. burningman's eplaya.

What if I am the first to start the "Structures" thread and then kick all useful posters out of it, and make sure it sucks for imparting structural information?

Sure, good folks could start their own "Structures" thread in response, but then you have 2 and that could be confusing. Further, what if somebody non-evil creates the "Structures" thread, but I disagree with how they run or admin it? Should I create #2, and should those who disagree with us both create #3?

I am not sure how big a problem this would actually be, but it might be worth considering since there are certain threads here that are more "common domain" than on a board like the 3playa.

Looking at the structure tree I can see your point Don. Maybe I can pare the suggestion back by saying, um, threads started in the general discussion might be a place to try it out. If a thread starts there but is inappropriate for the general discussion then it'd get moved over to the 'Structures' where ownership would be denied.

When it comes to thread ownership I feel it should be an all or nothing situation, either implement it for all threads or none. And while it works on the smaller scale 3Playa I can't see it working in this free wheeling melee over here.

Also from a technical perspective is there a mod to allow this or is thread ownership on a PHPBB board a pie in the sky idea?

Captain Fuckwit wrote:Having no Edit button is stupid. To say otherwise would be to point out that the Theory of Gravity is only a theory.

spectabillis wrote:This has certainly degraded past being useful.

I wonder if things should have been locked, posts deleted, or what? I left a few comments to try to keep things on track but obviously that did not do much. I dont really want to be some sort of moderating parental guide, but this is getting absurd.

Unless the discussion cannot return so some semblance of civility and stay on the Edit Discussion, there is no use in keeping this open.

To be on Eplaya and not be able to point to something and say "That'sstupid." is analogous to being in Nazi occupied Poland and not being able to point to the smoke-stacks of the Death Camps and say "That'sevil".

I'm a very intelligent person. I know when I am on-topic. I shouldnotberequired to always be on topic with laser-like precision. Being perspicacious, I'm also often veryconcise which some will confuse with being enigmatic, didactic or arrogant. I most often sound harsh: I'm presenting a particular, unadorned point-of-view for a particular effect. If you are going to eventually understand me, you're going to have to overcome your innate prejudice against me just because my name is Captain Fuckwit.

For any "Moderator" to hint that he may lock down a thread, chiding someone for being off-topic or overly-personal is (unfortunately) a passive and subtle form of censorship. Some forms of censorship are relatively necessary such as removing posts that crash your browser, posts that display Larry Harvey's home telephone number, etc. But overall, censorship should be avoidedwheneverpossible.

There is no one here who is qualified to censor, against those whose opinions "matter", those whose opinions are (perceived as) extraneous personal comments. There is no one here who has the overarchingintellect to comprehensivelyknow the intentions and subtleties of every writer- What may appear to a "personal remark" may actually be a design toward a higher intent at "herding cats". The Moderator(s) shouldnot attempt to try to moderate opinion. Moderation has to evolve of itself via written public rebuttal.

Fascism is not an outside force. Fascism exists within our ownhuman nature and it is probably something that we all should strive to overcome. Fascism continually creeps on Eplaya. The concepts of Fascism are kind of tricky which makes it a bit more difficult to get one's head around them. But Fascism is here. There's no sense in ignoring it. The most readily available conduit toward promoting Fascism is "message-moderation" and therefore we need to proceed carefully. One element of Fascism is the ideology of creating a perfect order (within a thread). I hope we can continue to discuss and understand Fascism as it pertains to Eplaya and Burning Man. To avoid Fascism, Admin Moderation should function under a system of checks-and-balances. Let's avoid censorship. Let's encourage honestly and learn respect.

I should not be required to always be on topic with laser-like precision. Being perspicacious, I'm also often very concise which some will confuse with being enigmatic, didactic or arrogant. I most often sound harsh: I'm presenting a particular, unadorned point-of-view for a particular effect

I agree. And I think this moderation thing is going that will take some time to get the hang of. Spectabillis didn't post this until page 6 of this thread however, so it seems to me that he wasn't just jumping the gun here. He seems to be trying to get things back on track and continue the discussion.

To be on Eplaya and not be able to point to something and say "That's stupid." is analogous to being in Nazi occupied Poland and not being able to point to the smoke-stacks of the Death Camps and say "That's evil".

I think comparing anything that happens on an internet BBS to what happened in a Nazi death camp, is well, not a good analogy.

..But overall, censorship should be avoided whenever possible.

Again, I agree, but this wasn't censorship but rather a more strongly worded request because the first one wasn't heeded.

I figured there would be a followup to this, which is why I would normally prefer to reply via notes in a more personal fashion. But I actually appreciate that you feel you can post this under the moderator discussion because I think I am the last person who honestly wants to see moderators become some sort of nazi enforcers of policy. This is a community board, and would like to moderators remain in the same spirit.

Historically, discussions on policy and case studies have been the hot spots that spark fires and quickly spread to other areas of the board. When you have people refer to other's ideas as stupid, or start to pull in references to people as dickheads that has the tendency to escalate quickly into a personal bitch-fest.

Making personal references to users can also cause this, please visit the case studies thread for a good example of how it pulls people off topic and into flaming.

I hope you did not take my comment as inferring you were ignorant, from your language and points you make I would not make that assumption. It was aimed more at emotional tone than mental ability - and I dont place much relevance in a person's name, at least not in any negative context.

Unfortunately we need to keep the edit discussion on track as much as we can since a decision is needed before the next meeting, that is my prime concern. I, and probably many others, would appreciate a slightly less antagonizing tone in that discussion because many feel they are not comfortable posting in a thread with it. Since this is a community, we want to make sure as many people voice their opinion and concerns as can be made. Does that mean we have to be overly nice and accomodating? Absolutely not, there just needs to be a balance.

My intention is never to censor, I sincerely want to hear peoples thoughts and beliefs. But this can be done in a civil manner that does not degrade the benefits of social interaction.

spectabillis wrote: But this can be done in a civil manner that does not degrade the benefits of social interaction.

There is something about holding people to the basic tenents of politeness and to encourage them not to commit rhetorical sins. Being made into a straw man just freaks me out and you're not likely to get much sence from me for the rest of hte day, for instance. YEah, I had a punk rock streak too, but there's a whole lot of reasons to put that aside, not least to get people to listen to you.

The Lady with a Lamprey

"The powerful are exploiting people, art and ideas, and this leads to us plebes debating how to best ration ice.Man, no wonder they always win....." Lonesomebri

theCryptofishist wrote:There is something about holding people to the basic tenents of politeness and to encourage them not to commit rhetorical sins. Being made into a straw man just freaks me out and you're not likely to get much sence from me for the rest of hte day, for instance. YEah, I had a punk rock streak too, but there's a whole lot of reasons to put that aside, not least to get people to listen to you.

Yeah, but my main intention is to apply it to the policy discussion so eveyone feels at least some comfort in posting their ideas and opinions. I think everyone has a right to be heard about community board policy, not just the most vocal or agressive.

Also, shy newbies tend to avoid conflict threads. I would like to bring them into participating in the community and out from lurking, or there will be even more observers.

(03/23/05)This is a paradox: Moderation does not equal censorship; however, Moderation is censorship. The real heart of the matter is-- What is it that is wanting of censorship? In the wanting of censorship, the Eplaya has to serve two masters- The E-playa community and the BMORG.

actiongrl wrote:Ultimately a decision like that [a prohibition of the Edit button] does rest with the group who administrate and own it - those who created the board, those who are responsible for its maintenance, those who volunteer to implement its goals by their efforts.(03/27/05)

(04/05/05)Essentially, this statement (up-thread) is asserting the existence of the BMORG-Volunteer Eplaya Oligarchy. Regardless of what the people of the "community" want, the ultimateinterest of an oligarch lies in the maintenance of the established order. Unfortunately, if the Eplaya Admin team strictly follow the needs of the Oligarchy, our community will experience those kind of results one usually finds over time under the rule of an oligarchy- namely, obligatory participation in the Oligarch'schoice, a lack of innovation and creativity, a supression of the human spirit and a morass of dumbness.

If the maintenance of this Oligarchy depends on enticing the participation of a population whose people (Westerners) are already accustomed to the inalienable entitlements to assemble, to worship, to speak, to print and to petition for change, then this Oligarchy would best be served by understanding that the consensus of the people will probably include disappointment and frustration at the encumbrances of no working Edit button and de facto censorship. This disappointment and frustration will hamper the endeavor toward creating a good and well-rounded community on Eplaya.

(03/30/05)For any "Moderator" to hint that he may lock down a thread, chiding someone for being off-topic or overly-personal is (unfortunately) a passive and subtle form of censorship. Some forms of censorship are relatively necessary such as removing posts that crash your browser, posts that display Larry Harvey's home telephone number, etc. But overall, censorship should be avoidedwheneverpossible.

There is no one here who is qualified to censor, against those whose opinions "matter", those whose opinions are (perceived as) extraneous personal comments. There is no one here who has the overarchingintellect to comprehensivelyknow the intentions and subtleties of every writer- What may appear to a "personal remark" may actually be a design toward a higher intent at "herding cats". The Moderator(s) shouldnot attempt to try to moderate opinion. Moderation has to evolve of itself via written public rebuttal.

(03/24/05)Having a "voice" is so primal that people will contort themselves in the most amazing and harrowing ways to get their message out and be heard. This primal need has a lot to do with what drives people to create art. Humans seem to also possess a primal need to moderate other people's voice. This primal need has a lot to do with what drives us to wage war. This is a conflict within the human condition. Censorship is veryrarelyjustlyapplied. Censorship causes intense emotions of infuriating anger, depression, resentment, betrayal and persecution. Censorship is evil.

(03/30/05)Fascism is not an outside force. Fascism exists within our ownhuman nature and it is probably something that we all should strive to overcome. Fascism continually creeps on Eplaya. The concepts of Fascism are kind of tricky which makes it a bit more difficult to get one's head around them. But Fascism is here. There's no sense in ignoring it. The most readily available conduit toward promoting Fascism is "message-moderation" and therefore we need to proceed carefully. One element of Fascism is the ideology of creating a perfect order (within a thread).

(04/21/05)At the provincial level, where the list of topics is at, the Admins and Moderators should collar themselves at the no-slack end of a chain made of gold. An Admin or Moderator can easily break the chain, only to be seen as a mad-dog on the loose. At the provincial level, topic names will range all over the place, from the opaque and the inane, to the significant and the deliberate, to the pointless, the mispelled, the mischievous, to the normal, to the drab, to the functional, to the fab, to the fecund. And the numbers of Topics that a user will have to page through to scan it all will possibly range into the infinity of fear's oblivion. Unfortunately, it will be in our own fascist nature to want to clean up these provinces, to make order out of apparent chaos, to fence it in, for the good of everyoneelse. Some users will promote a much needed cleansing of this board with all the drama of falling down a hill! It's at these times that an Admin or Moderator should appreciate their being tied by the gold chain- The Admin or Moderator is no user's agent.

The provinces of Eplaya, by their own nature, will always be jungles. You can't tame a jungle, except by cutting it down to extinction . We very well know, that the lively life is in the jungle, where things eat and things get eaten. We're newbies every day . User feedback that advocates the taming of the jungle for the sake of the newbies is ignorant and harmful advice. We're here because we're self-reliant and because we want to be here. And regardless of all our engineering, we're still in a jungle of humanity where our crude nature resides. We can make a better BBS. But beware the fascist pipedream of creating a perfect order in concrete. The jungle is much more alive.

I've read and re-read and then read once more still your post. I'm not sure exactly what it is that you're saying.

Do you wish this board to have no moderation what so ever? That's what I'm hearing.

Do you think that Bmorg is somehow censoring this board in some fashion?

Other than shutting the entire board down, I haven't seen Bmorg do anything that resembles censorship, and I've been posting on these boards since it's existance as a single thread way back in the day.

I think the censorship stuff described above is a bunch of crap. The ORG's funding this board and if they want to implement draconian rules it's their right to do so. We're all here as guests so if you don't like the rules you can ask nicely for change and if that doesn't work you leave, start your own place, whatever.

This might be a jungle but I have no problem with the moderators, I see them as keeping the peace and putting out minor fires so the jungle doesn't burn down. And that can happen.

In any event I haven't seen a good argument yet that's changed my mind on our moderators here. They do a great job...I've sure given them a few things to do and some of the things they had to do didn't come out in my favor. But I still think the world of them and the thankless job they're volunteering to do. I hope they stick around awhile. </soapbox>

K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!

Kinetic IV wrote:I think the censorship stuff described above is a bunch of crap. The ORG's funding this board and if they want to implement draconian rules it's their right to do so. We're all here as guests so if you don't like the rules you can ask nicely for change and if that doesn't work you leave, start your own place, whatever.

You're right that it is the Org's board and hence the Org's rules, but that doesn't mean that CF inaccurately identified censorship on it.

With that said, I am not sure I follow where CF is heading either, but I think he is basically accurate even if a little hyperbolic in style.

Kinetic IV wrote:I think the censorship stuff described above is a bunch of crap. The ORG's funding this board and if they want to implement draconian rules it's their right to do so. We're all here as guests so if you don't like the rules you can ask nicely for change and if that doesn't work you leave, start your own place, whatever.

I dont think its crap, just maybe off the mark for the reason I posted. But even though this is the org's board its still a business based upon the event and oriented around a community - something that they not only have a certain degree of responsibility to - but also for good business sense you would think to avoid that approach.

As far as asking people to just leave if they dont like it? God I hope not, that would be a pretty condencending and dismissive attitude.